Islamic Discussion Thread ٣

[Herskerstad]

Very true. It seems at times as if this thread is permanently shadowed by a bunch of islamophobes who come out of the woodwork and take over the entire thread every so often at the slightest trigger.

Yeah, it's a daily occurance seemingly. Very annoying, tbth.

If you hate Islam why stick your head in a thread made to discuss it?

As if something cannot be discussed from a position of dissent.

It may not occur to the understanding of some, but having to call up friends and family to check if they are alright every time a predictable disaster strikes, entirely related to shit-tier immigration policies regardless of where the spectrum from the normative left to right on the issue, might garner some anger. Having it constantly traced back not to class, not to race, but to a fountainhead of an ideology that, while not monolithic, has historical and present roots towards violent extremism of the most degenerate kind, which one has to do significant rhetorical gymnastics to shield the very founder of said faith from at least if one gives any credence to the sound hadiths at least grants a causation between the two. Thus, you will get necessary offence. If you imagine such as uncharitable or ill-willed, make a defence of historical Islam. I don't think you'll find Alex ill-read on the subject.

Now on the question of what constitutes necessary offence as opposed to unnecessary offence will certainly find shots fired, but one would have to be completely alien from reason to not see it as mutual shots across the bows on that front and there is always a bit of pearl clutching to boot. This is NSG, not NS safe space, not NS daycare, and the Islamic thread is not a mosque so you'll just have to take the good days with the bad.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Yeah, it's a daily occurance seemingly. Very annoying, tbth.

If you hate Islam why stick your head in a thread made to discuss it?

As if something cannot be discussed from a position of dissent.

It may not occur to the understanding of some, but having to call up friends and family to check if they are alright every time a predictable disaster strikes, entirely related to shit-tier immigration policies regardless of where the spectrum from the normative left to right on the issue, might garner some anger. Having it constantly traced back not to class, not to race, but to a fountainhead of an ideology that, while not monolithic, has historical and present roots towards violent extremism of the most degenerate kind, which one has to do significant rhetorical gymnastics to shield the very founder of said faith from at least if one gives any credence to the sound hadiths at least grants a causation between the two. Thus, you will get necessary offence. If you imagine such as uncharitable or ill-willed, make a defence of historical Islam. I don't think you'll find Alex ill-read on the subject.

Now on the question of what constitutes necessary offence as opposed to unnecessary offence will certainly find shots fired, but one would have to be completely alien from reason to not see it as mutual shots across the bows on that front and there is always a bit of pearl clutching to boot. This is NSG, not NS safe space, not NS daycare, and the Islamic thread is not a mosque so you'll just have to take the good days with the bad.

We are not defending Al-Islam's history most of the time. We are defending Al-Islam itself. And yes, hate of Al-Islam is unfounded because of misinterpretations of our Deen.

[El Hamidah]

Yeah, it's a daily occurance seemingly. Very annoying, tbth.

If you hate Islam why stick your head in a thread made to discuss it?

As if something cannot be discussed from a position of dissent.

It may not occur to the understanding of some, but having to call up friends and family to check if they are alright every time a predictable disaster strikes, entirely related to shit-tier immigration policies regardless of where the spectrum from the normative left to right on the issue, might garner some anger. Having it constantly traced back not to class, not to race, but to a fountainhead of an ideology that, while not monolithic, has historical and present roots towards violent extremism of the most degenerate kind, which one has to do significant rhetorical gymnastics to shield the very founder of said faith from at least if one gives any credence to the sound hadiths at least grants a causation between the two. Thus, you will get necessary offence. If you imagine such as uncharitable or ill-willed, make a defence of historical Islam. I don't think you'll find Alex ill-read on the subject.

Now on the question of what constitutes necessary offence as opposed to unnecessary offence will certainly find shots fired, but one would have to be completely alien from reason to not see it as mutual shots across the bows on that front and there is always a bit of pearl clutching to boot. This is NSG, not NS safe space, not NS daycare, and the Islamic thread is not a mosque so you'll just have to take the good days with the bad.

It is absolutely tied to class. The culprits are usually low income migrants attending Salafist gatherings. The mass immigration is a result of imperialist actions as is the spread of Global Islamism.

The Hadith themselves aren't to blame, they're words. They don't just corrupt everyone who reads them magically. The blind traditionalism is what's to blame. And the blind traditionalism wouldn't be so commonplace if the Muslim world wasn't held back from secularism.

[El Hamidah]

Having a Muslim steal your lunch money in middle school, or having a Muslim be mean to you during Ramadan does not count as "experience".

No, but actually interacting with people from the Banlieue and seeing what's life is actually like in one does while, and I'm sorry to tell you that, " tots having a prolo friend" or having taken your card at the party to impress girls from your liberal art classes doesn't make a bobo knowledgeable about the situation there no matter how "in" he thinks he is.

muh marxist larpers liberal art classes XD

Just because you have access to the Sunnah online and live next to Salafists doesn't make you a scholar on Islam. You have scant knowledge of the tradition and use bits and pieces of it to justify blind nationalism.

[Herskerstad]

As if something cannot be discussed from a position of dissent.

It may not occur to the understanding of some, but having to call up friends and family to check if they are alright every time a predictable disaster strikes, entirely related to shit-tier immigration policies regardless of where the spectrum from the normative left to right on the issue, might garner some anger. Having it constantly traced back not to class, not to race, but to a fountainhead of an ideology that, while not monolithic, has historical and present roots towards violent extremism of the most degenerate kind, which one has to do significant rhetorical gymnastics to shield the very founder of said faith from at least if one gives any credence to the sound hadiths at least grants a causation between the two. Thus, you will get necessary offence. If you imagine such as uncharitable or ill-willed, make a defence of historical Islam. I don't think you'll find Alex ill-read on the subject.

Now on the question of what constitutes necessary offence as opposed to unnecessary offence will certainly find shots fired, but one would have to be completely alien from reason to not see it as mutual shots across the bows on that front and there is always a bit of pearl clutching to boot. This is NSG, not NS safe space, not NS daycare, and the Islamic thread is not a mosque so you'll just have to take the good days with the bad.

It is absolutely tied to class. The culprits are usually low income migrants attending Salafist gatherings. The mass immigration is a result of imperialist actions as is the spread of Global Islamism.

The Hadith themselves aren't to blame. The blind traditionalism is. And the blind traditionalism wouldn't be so commonplace if the Muslim world wasn't held back from secularism.

And in that regard we got your word against MI5 and WSJ, as the British Islamic terrorists so far or those that get in the cross-hair for such are overwhelmingly married, more than high-school degrees of education and little that indicates dire economic straits. While there is no denying recruitment efforts are also tailored to low-income, low education figures, going through the various terror attacks, some that require a high degree of organisation and technical expertise, some that are organised across communities even which the west has allowed to lay roots in said nations. Now you can find all manners of esoteric, oriental religions that have all manners of radical warrior codes or such mysticism within itself, but Islam is the one which if we go by western converts seem to have a near monopoly on terror, which might make it an easy thing to justify from any theologian who would point to Muhammad who claimed himself victorious through said means and certainly backed them up with his actions.

And then held back by what? Not the crusaders, mormon missionaries, radical evangelicals or Jehovas witnesses? Could it be that Islam have certain retrograde doctrines which quite immediately seeks to mimic the Sunnah, which is utterly unsuited for the modern day and that this has, with exceptions, manifested in history? If so, why then encourage their wellsprings in the west?

[Baltenstein]

As if something cannot be discussed from a position of dissent.

It may not occur to the understanding of some, but having to call up friends and family to check if they are alright every time a predictable disaster strikes, entirely related to shit-tier immigration policies regardless of where the spectrum from the normative left to right on the issue, might garner some anger. Having it constantly traced back not to class, not to race, but to a fountainhead of an ideology that, while not monolithic, has historical and present roots towards violent extremism of the most degenerate kind, which one has to do significant rhetorical gymnastics to shield the very founder of said faith from at least if one gives any credence to the sound hadiths at least grants a causation between the two. Thus, you will get necessary offence. If you imagine such as uncharitable or ill-willed, make a defence of historical Islam. I don't think you'll find Alex ill-read on the subject.

Now on the question of what constitutes necessary offence as opposed to unnecessary offence will certainly find shots fired, but one would have to be completely alien from reason to not see it as mutual shots across the bows on that front and there is always a bit of pearl clutching to boot. This is NSG, not NS safe space, not NS daycare, and the Islamic thread is not a mosque so you'll just have to take the good days with the bad.

It is absolutely tied to class. The culprits are usually low income migrants attending Salafist gatherings. The mass immigration is a result of imperialist actions as is the spread of Global Islamism.

The main causes of mass immigration are

1.) The improvement of medicine to the point of enabling population growth rates in the developing countries which their states and economies are in absolutely no way capable of managing. Most Muslim countries were governed by authoritarian dictatorships or semi-dictatorships in the past too, however it simply didn't matter as much back then because the population numbers were small and stable. They aren't now.

2.) Techonological innovation which means that images of life in Western and Northern Europe are reaching even the most remote Sahel or Afghan village. In the 50ies, Germany and Sweden might just as well have been on another planet for your average Afghan, Nigerian or Algerian youngster. These days, they are places of perceived mik and honey that you can reach out to if you know how.

Imperialism, which has always existed in one way or another, and which in fact was far more intense in the times before global mass immigration (Compare, for example, the European presence in the Islamic World in 1918 to that in 2018) has precious little to do with it.

[Pilarcraft]

It is absolutely tied to class. The culprits are usually low income migrants attending Salafist gatherings. The mass immigration is a result of imperialist actions as is the spread of Global Islamism.

The main causes of mass immigration are

1.) The improvement of medicine to the point of enabling population growth rates in the developing countries which their states and economies are in absolutely no way capable of managing. Most Muslim countries were governed by authoritarian dictatorships or semi-dictatorships in the past too, however it simply didn't matter as much back then because the population numbers were small and stable. They aren't now.

2.) Techonological innovation which means that images of life in Western and Northern Europe are reaching even the most remote Sahel or Afghan village. In the 50ies, Germany and Sweden might just as well have been on another planet for your average Afghan, Nigerian or Algerian youngster. These days, they are places of perceived mik and honey that you can reach out to if you know how.

Imperialism, which has always existed in one way or another, and which in fact was far more intense in the times before global mass immigration (Compare, for example, the European presence in the Islamic World in 1918 to that in 2018) has precious little to do with it.

Yeah, but you generally don't see a high number of refugees unless some sort of calamity is happening in the home country. And the current hostilities in Middle east? well, they all do connect to the great Leftist Boogeyman that is "Western Imperialism" in one way or the other.

[El Hamidah]

It is absolutely tied to class. The culprits are usually low income migrants attending Salafist gatherings. The mass immigration is a result of imperialist actions as is the spread of Global Islamism.

The main causes of mass immigration are

1.) The improvement of medicine to the point of enabling population growth rates in the developing countries which their states and economies are in absolutely no way capable of managing. Most Muslim countries were governed by authoritarian dictatorships or semi-dictatorships in the past too, however it simply didn't matter as much back then because the population numbers were small and stable. They aren't now.

2.) Techonological innovation which means that images of life in Western and Northern Europe are reaching even the most remote Sahel or Afghan village. In the 50ies, Germany and Sweden might just as well have been on another planet for your average Afghan, Nigerian or Algerian youngster. These days, they are places of perceived mik and honey that you can reach out to if you know how.

Imperialism, which has always existed in one way or another, and which in fact was far more intense in the times before global mass immigration (Compare, for example, the European presence in the Islamic World in 1918 to that in 2018) has precious little to do with it.

>Not seeing how all this is tied to class

[Baltenstein]

Not seeing how all this is tied to class

It is a response to your assertion that "The mass immigration is a result of imperialist actions".

[Herskerstad]

As if something cannot be discussed from a position of dissent.

It may not occur to the understanding of some, but having to call up friends and family to check if they are alright every time a predictable disaster strikes, entirely related to shit-tier immigration policies regardless of where the spectrum from the normative left to right on the issue, might garner some anger. Having it constantly traced back not to class, not to race, but to a fountainhead of an ideology that, while not monolithic, has historical and present roots towards violent extremism of the most degenerate kind, which one has to do significant rhetorical gymnastics to shield the very founder of said faith from at least if one gives any credence to the sound hadiths at least grants a causation between the two. Thus, you will get necessary offence. If you imagine such as uncharitable or ill-willed, make a defence of historical Islam. I don't think you'll find Alex ill-read on the subject.

Now on the question of what constitutes necessary offence as opposed to unnecessary offence will certainly find shots fired, but one would have to be completely alien from reason to not see it as mutual shots across the bows on that front and there is always a bit of pearl clutching to boot. This is NSG, not NS safe space, not NS daycare, and the Islamic thread is not a mosque so you'll just have to take the good days with the bad.

We are not defending Al-Islam's history most of the time. We are defending Al-Islam itself. And yes, hate of Al-Islam is unfounded because of misinterpretations of our Deen.

Alright, correct my misunderstanding on the following then. Sahih Muslim 3901

There came a slave and pledged allegiance to Allah's Apostle on migration; he (the prophet) did not know that he was a slave. Then there came his master and demanded him back, whereupon Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Sell him to me. And he bought him for two black slaves, and he did not afterwards take allegiance from anyone until he had asked him whether he was a slave (or a free man).

It seems to me Muhammad engaged in a bit of slave trading, buying one slave for the price of two black ones. I find slavery to be unbecoming of a perfect example to say the least, and trading two for one, in particular with the racial addition, to be a rejection of the worth in the imageo dei itself. What am I misunderstanding in this transaction?

[Baltenstein]

Yeah, but you generally don't see a high number of refugees unless some sort of calamity is happening in the home country. And the current hostilities in Middle east? well, they all do connect to the great Leftist Boogeyman that is "Western Imperialism" in one way or the other.

Genuine war refugees, as defined by the asylum laws of most modern countries, aren't really the issue in the current immigration debate, and most European countries (except Visengrad obviously) would be both capable and willing of taking care of them - take, for example, the refugees from the Balkan wars in the 90ies.

The neverending stream of economic immigrants who try to get to Europe posing as refugees, on the other hand, is a different matter entirely.

The current hostilities in the Middle East have a myriad different causes, of which Western interventionism is but a tiny fragment. The unbearability of the ME's demographic development and the ME's own self-destructive sectarianism play an infinitely greater role.

[Conserative Morality]

Yeah, but you generally don't see a high number of refugees unless some sort of calamity is happening in the home country. And the current hostilities in Middle east? well, they all do connect to the great Leftist Boogeyman that is "Western Imperialism" in one way or the other.

Genuine war refugees, as defined by the asylum laws of most modern countries, aren't really the issue in the current immigration debate, and most European countries (except Visengrad obviously) would be both capable and willing of taking care of them - take, for example, the refugees from the Balkan wars in the 90ies.

The neverending stream of economic immigrants who try to get to Europe posing as refugees, on the other hand, is a different matter entirely.

The current hostilities in the Middle East have a myriad different causes, of which Western interventionism is but a tiny fragment. The unbearability of the ME's demographic development and the ME's own self-destructive sectarianism play an infinitely greater role.

Let's not kid ourselves.

[Luminesa]

Genuine war refugees, as defined by the asylum laws of most modern countries, aren't really the issue in the current immigration debate, and most European countries (except Visengrad obviously) would be both capable and willing of taking care of them - take, for example, the refugees from the Balkan wars in the 90ies.

The neverending stream of economic immigrants who try to get to Europe posing as refugees, on the other hand, is a different matter entirely.

The current hostilities in the Middle East have a myriad different causes, of which Western interventionism is but a tiny fragment. The unbearability of the ME's demographic development and the ME's own self-destructive sectarianism play an infinitely greater role.

Let's not kid ourselves.

Not sure what Germany and France have been doing then (maybe taking in too many all at once)?

[Luminesa]

Yeah, but you generally don't see a high number of refugees unless some sort of calamity is happening in the home country. And the current hostilities in Middle east? well, they all do connect to the great Leftist Boogeyman that is "Western Imperialism" in one way or the other.

Genuine war refugees, as defined by the asylum laws of most modern countries, aren't really the issue in the current immigration debate, and most European countries (except Visengrad obviously) would be both capable and willing of taking care of them - take, for example, the refugees from the Balkan wars in the 90ies.

The neverending stream of economic immigrants who try to get to Europe posing as refugees, on the other hand, is a different matter entirely.

The current hostilities in the Middle East have a myriad different causes, of which Western interventionism is but a tiny fragment. The unbearability of the ME's demographic development and the ME's own self-destructive sectarianism play an infinitely greater role.

The bottom part is an interesting point. A lot of the Middle East’s problems...have started in the Middle East!

[El Hamidah]

It is absolutely tied to class. The culprits are usually low income migrants attending Salafist gatherings. The mass immigration is a result of imperialist actions as is the spread of Global Islamism.

The Hadith themselves aren't to blame. The blind traditionalism is. And the blind traditionalism wouldn't be so commonplace if the Muslim world wasn't held back from secularism.

And in that regard we got your word against MI5 and WSJ, as the British Islamic terrorists so far or those that get in the cross-hair for such are overwhelmingly married, more than high-school degrees of education and little that indicates dire economic straits. While there is no denying recruitment efforts are also tailored to low-income, low education figures, going through the various terror attacks, some that require a high degree of organisation and technical expertise, some that are organised across communities even which the west has allowed to lay roots in said nations. Now you can find all manners of esoteric, oriental religions that have all manners of radical warrior codes or such mysticism within itself, but Islam is the one which if we go by western converts seem to have a near monopoly on terror, which might make it an easy thing to justify from any theologian who would point to Muhammad who claimed himself victorious through said means and certainly backed them up with his actions.

And then held back by what? Not the crusaders, mormon missionaries, radical evangelicals or Jehovas witnesses? Could it be that Islam have certain retrograde doctrines which quite immediately seeks to mimic the Sunnah, which is utterly unsuited for the modern day and that this has, with exceptions, manifested in history? If so, why then encourage their wellsprings in the west?

It still doesn't change why they're here or what the problem is. The problem is (in Britain) largely allowing mass immigration of parochials from the subcontinent. Whether their children grow up to go to college or not is of no consequence. They're raised with conservative village people ideals because that's the condition their families are originally used to.
they're surrounded by radicalized low income Muslims at their masjids. Of course it's tied to that. Not to mention they're in a culture that never really wanted them in there in the first place and largely brought them over from the colonies to rebuild the country after the war because they had to.

If you have the brain drain immigration, like in America's case, you don't have the same problem. Because they don't come from the same background.

[El Hamidah]

Yeah, but you generally don't see a high number of refugees unless some sort of calamity is happening in the home country. And the current hostilities in Middle east? well, they all do connect to the great Leftist Boogeyman that is "Western Imperialism" in one way or the other.

Genuine war refugees, as defined by the asylum laws of most modern countries, aren't really the issue in the current immigration debate, and most European countries (except Visengrad obviously) would be both capable and willing of taking care of them - take, for example, the refugees from the Balkan wars in the 90ies.

The neverending stream of economic immigrants who try to get to Europe posing as refugees, on the other hand, is a different matter entirely.

The current hostilities in the Middle East have a myriad different causes, of which Western interventionism is but a tiny fragment. The unbearability of the ME's demographic development and the ME's own self-destructive sectarianism play an infinitely greater role.

It's not about "Western" or "Eastern". It's about imperialism.

The causes are medieval. But global capitalism makes said medieval problems global. America and Western Europe is directly allied with the most destructive nations, Arab and non Arab in the entire region. Funding terrorist organizations and terrorist organizations to end the other terrorist organizations.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Muhammad who claimed himself victorious through said means

What means?

Could it be that Islam have certain retrograde doctrines

It doesn't

which quite immediately seeks to mimic the Sunnah

Yes, we are supposed to follow the example of the Prophet (SAWS) and obey Allah (SWT). Is that a problem for you?

which is utterly unsuited for the modern day

Yes it is

We are not defending Al-Islam's history most of the time. We are defending Al-Islam itself. And yes, hate of Al-Islam is unfounded because of misinterpretations of our Deen.

Alright, correct my misunderstanding on the following then. Sahih Muslim 3901

There came a slave and pledged allegiance to Allah's Apostle on migration; he (the prophet) did not know that he was a slave. Then there came his master and demanded him back, whereupon Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Sell him to me. And he bought him for two black slaves, and he did not afterwards take allegiance from anyone until he had asked him whether he was a slave (or a free man).

It seems to me Muhammad engaged in a bit of slave trading, buying one slave for the price of two black ones. I find slavery to be unbecoming of a perfect example to say the least, and trading two for one, in particular with the racial addition, to be a rejection of the worth in the imageo dei itself. What am I misunderstanding in this transaction?

Idk what that means, Allahu 'Alim.
1 thing I do know is that I'm not gonna take your slander of Prophet Muhammad's (SAWS) name.

[Conserative Morality]

Not sure what Germany and France have been doing then (maybe taking in too many all at once)?

France has been herding them into camps and ghettos in order to keep them moving along to the next country, because nothing says "Taking care of refugees" like concentration camps.

Germany's a rare exception.

[Pilarcraft]

Alright, correct my misunderstanding on the following then. Sahih Muslim 3901



It seems to me Muhammad engaged in a bit of slave trading, buying one slave for the price of two black ones. I find slavery to be unbecoming of a perfect example to say the least, and trading two for one, in particular with the racial addition, to be a rejection of the worth in the imageo dei itself. What am I misunderstanding in this transaction?

Idk what that means, Allahu 'Alim.
1 thing I do know is that I'm not gonna take your slander of Prophet Muhammad's (SAWS) name.

alright this, this is what's wrong with Islam.
There is a Hadith. a Rawayat. that claims that Muhammad sold two Black Slaves to buy another Slave, then to presumably free him. This mean, obviously, that in this case, at least, Muhammad partook in Slave Trade.
Slavery is Immoral. (unless you disagree that Slavery is immoral?), and one would expect that the Image of God on Earth (aka, God's representative and messenger, who has Ismat and is infallible) wouldn't partake in an immoral action such as Slavery.
There are two possibilities. The Hadith is Doruq (a lie) or that the Hadith is, in fact, Sahih (since it appeared in a Sahih Book) and therefore probably trustworthy.
There's no Slander here. If that is correct, Muhammad isn't infallible because he partook in an immoral act at least once. IF that is false, then you can bring evidence that it is, in fact, false.

[Genivaria]

Muhammad who claimed himself victorious through said means

What means?

Could it be that Islam have certain retrograde doctrines

It doesn't

which quite immediately seeks to mimic the Sunnah

Yes, we are supposed to follow the example of the Prophet (SAWS) and obey Allah (SWT). Is that a problem for you?

which is utterly unsuited for the modern day

Yes it is

Alright, correct my misunderstanding on the following then. Sahih Muslim 3901



It seems to me Muhammad engaged in a bit of slave trading, buying one slave for the price of two black ones. I find slavery to be unbecoming of a perfect example to say the least, and trading two for one, in particular with the racial addition, to be a rejection of the worth in the imageo dei itself. What am I misunderstanding in this transaction?

Idk what that means, Allahu 'Alim.
1 thing I do know is that I'm not gonna take your slander of Prophet Muhammad's (SAWS) name.

Can you actually defend it or are you just going to be offended?

[Genivaria]

Not sure what Germany and France have been doing then (maybe taking in too many all at once)?

France has been herding them into camps and ghettos in order to keep them moving along to the next country, because nothing says "Taking care of refugees" like concentration camps.

Germany's a rare exception.

I believe that Germany was the first to open the arms of hospitality.

[Luminesa]

Muhammad who claimed himself victorious through said means

What means?

Could it be that Islam have certain retrograde doctrines

It doesn't

which quite immediately seeks to mimic the Sunnah

Yes, we are supposed to follow the example of the Prophet (SAWS) and obey Allah (SWT). Is that a problem for you?

which is utterly unsuited for the modern day

Yes it is

Alright, correct my misunderstanding on the following then. Sahih Muslim 3901



It seems to me Muhammad engaged in a bit of slave trading, buying one slave for the price of two black ones. I find slavery to be unbecoming of a perfect example to say the least, and trading two for one, in particular with the racial addition, to be a rejection of the worth in the imageo dei itself. What am I misunderstanding in this transaction?

Idk what that means, Allahu 'Alim.
1 thing I do know is that I'm not gonna take your slander of Prophet Muhammad's (SAWS) name.

“I dunno what you just said at all, but I’m not gonna stand here and take it.”

SAY WHAT?! THAT’S NOT HOW DEBATE WORKS.

If you don’t know how to argue, go back and read a book on your faith, because it’s obvious that he has and you have not.

[Herskerstad]

Muhammad who claimed himself victorious through said means

What means?

Could it be that Islam have certain retrograde doctrines

It doesn't

which quite immediately seeks to mimic the Sunnah

Yes, we are supposed to follow the example of the Prophet (SAWS) and obey Allah (SWT). Is that a problem for you?

which is utterly unsuited for the modern day

Yes it is

Alright, correct my misunderstanding on the following then. Sahih Muslim 3901



It seems to me Muhammad engaged in a bit of slave trading, buying one slave for the price of two black ones. I find slavery to be unbecoming of a perfect example to say the least, and trading two for one, in particular with the racial addition, to be a rejection of the worth in the imageo dei itself. What am I misunderstanding in this transaction?

Idk what that means, Allahu 'Alim.
1 thing I do know is that I'm not gonna take your slander of Prophet Muhammad's (SAWS) name.

If you're making one big song and dance about misunderstandings you should be able to correct fairly basic ones. The hadith is not beyond basic reading comprehension, but allow me to rephrase.

Is it perfectly acceptable to trade two black slaves for a slave of another race? Is that behaviour befitting the example to all mankind?

If referring to the hadith, it's not my slander, it's Al-Bukhari.

[Conserative Morality]

I believe that Germany was the first to open the arms of hospitality.

And the far-right has been blaming them for Eurabia ever since.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

What means?

It doesn't

Yes, we are supposed to follow the example of the Prophet (SAWS) and obey Allah (SWT). Is that a problem for you?

Yes it is

Idk what that means, Allahu 'Alim.
1 thing I do know is that I'm not gonna take your slander of Prophet Muhammad's (SAWS) name.

If you're making one big song and dance about misunderstandings you should be able to correct fairly basic ones. The hadith is not beyond basic reading comprehension, but allow me to rephrase.

Is it perfectly acceptable to trade two black slaves for a slave of another race? Is that behaviour befitting the example to all mankind?

If referring to the hadith, it's not my slander, it's Al-Bukhari.

Actually, the hadith you cited was in Muslim.
You're slandering Prophet Muhammad (SAWS), just like just about every anti-Islam/Islamophobe up here.
Like I said before, Allahu 'Alim. It's probs better to ask an imam about this.